Is ODI status been given out too easily?

Take into account this match as one example. I don't have a problem with such games or the Asia Cup which has featured the UAE and Hong Kong being played, but really must they be given ODI status, when it proves nothing except players go out and boost their career averages and the minnow cops a massive defeat, which does nothing for the players confidence, who wants to lose by 290 runs? And this game still doesn't prove that James Marshall is suddenly good enough for the New Zealand, rather he is still crap and should not be withing a 10km radius. If he does suddenly kick on and actually does something against a real team, then all the power to him, but I still don't think it should count as an ODI, rather as a List A game (not even played in Ireland FFS).

Of course we can't forget about the perfomances of the UAE and Hong Kong as well, the massive hammerings been given out as well. What purpose is there for those games to have ODI status, when it doesn't really change our opinion of said players anyway? Big deal that Virender Sehwag or Suresh Raina got runs against Hong Kong, it doesn't really change my views on both players. And what have Netherlands, Canada or Bermuda have justification for having ODI status as well (including Ireland)?

The World Cup is about as far as I would go ITBT.

(I did delate the double thread of this, but that was through an error in the thread title)

Last edited by Craig; 02-07-2008 at 05:02 AM.

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

Originally Posted by Boobidy

Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

Personally I'd argue that to be awarded ODI status, the side would have to be of a good enough standard to potentially be awarded test status in the next 5-10 years, i.e. ODI status would be a stepping stone to the test arena.

I don't have problems like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh playing ODI cricket, since I will trust Prince EWS on the Zimbabwe players and if the luck goes their way, Bangladesh are certainly capable of pulling off an upset (ie beating India, South Africa and Australia).

I don't see why the only games termed "ODI" shouldn't be those between two ODI-standard teams, and never have.

I wouldn't even give World Cup games between, say, East Africa and New Zealand or Canada and England ODI status. And certainly not these nonsense games like Hong Kong vs Bangladesh or Ireland vs New Zealand.

If it must be done, I'd split the thing up. "Senior" ODIs (between ODI-standard teams) and "Junior" ODIs (between a ODI-standard team and a substandard one or two substandard ones).

Certainly, the fact that Bermuda vs India, never mind Bermuda vs Canada, is classified the same as New Zealand vs Sri Lanka, makes a mockery of what cricket has always stood for. The elite merit a status above that of the non-elite, unlike in most other sports.

Take into account this match as one example. I don't have a problem with such games or the Asia Cup which has featured the UAE and Hong Kong being played, but really must they be given ODI status, when it proves nothing except players go out and boost their career averages and the minnow cops a massive defeat, which does nothing for the players confidence, who wants to lose by 290 runs? And this game still doesn't prove that James Marshall is suddenly good enough for the New Zealand, rather he is still crap and should not be withing a 10km radius. If he does suddenly kick on and actually does something against a real team, then all the power to him, but I still don't think it should count as an ODI, rather as a List A game (not even played in Ireland FFS).

Of course we can't forget about the perfomances of the UAE and Hong Kong as well, the massive hammerings been given out as well. What purpose is there for those games to have ODI status, when it doesn't really change our opinion of said players anyway? Big deal that Virender Sehwag or Suresh Raina got runs against Hong Kong, it doesn't really change my views on both players. And what have Netherlands, Canada or Bermuda have justification for having ODI status as well (including Ireland)?

The World Cup is about as far as I would go ITBT.

(I did delate the double thread of this, but that was through an error in the thread title)

All the teams earned their ODI status and had to go through the process. And if they have to go through check points every 3/4 years where if they are not the top the lose their ODI status. As for the Asia cup it's just a tournament that has an ODI for which th UAE Hong Kong qualified too but I don't really like the tournament since both the associates are filled with expats.

Originally Posted by Goughy

That Ireland game annoys the hell out of me.

At their best they are only a poor team. That team selected is an embarassment.

It could have been a big game and instead it was a waste of time.

I have no issue with Ireland (or Scotland) having ODI status as long as they can get their best players out.

England dont have to play with 7 or so first choice players out.

Also the games must be televised. Shame on terrestrial channels for bleating they cant get cricket and then getting snobby about what is offered.

Im fine with these countries having OD status, they just have to be meaningful games ie TV coverage and presenting a team that is close to representing the best.

As for Hong Kong etc. If its only for Regional comps then Im fine but I still dont like it. The others (Can, Berm, Ire, Scot etc) all earned their right from qualifying for WC.

Yeah I was really disappointed with that game too but you have to understand they were truly a depleted side. Nothing can be done at the moment to stop that either because the ICC did what they could so associate players are available for their ODI's by making it mandatory that counties release them but there this phycological game played by the counties that if the players play in the associates they might lose their spots in the XI so they opt out. Nothing much can be done to stop that until the associates become semi/professionals. Which is likely to happen soon since there is a big funding about to come in from next year when the new ICC deal starts.

Personally I'd argue that to be awarded ODI status, the side would have to be of a good enough standard to potentially be awarded test status in the next 5-10 years, i.e. ODI status would be a stepping stone to the test arena.

Some of those sides potentially does, and it will become better 'cause this is a new process so better teams will come along.

Originally Posted by Craig

I don't have problems like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh playing ODI cricket, since I will trust Prince EWS on the Zimbabwe players and if the luck goes their way, Bangladesh are certainly capable of pulling off an upset (ie beating India, South Africa and Australia).

So are the top associates bar bermuda(but they are likely to lose their ODI status)

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't see why the only games termed "ODI" shouldn't be those between two ODI-standard teams, and never have.

I wouldn't even give World Cup games between, say, East Africa and New Zealand or Canada and England ODI status. And certainly not these nonsense games like Hong Kong vs Bangladesh or Ireland vs New Zealand.

If it must be done, I'd split the thing up. "Senior" ODIs (between ODI-standard teams) and "Junior" ODIs (between a ODI-standard team and a substandard one or two substandard ones).

Certainly, the fact that Bermuda vs India, never mind Bermuda vs Canada, is classified the same as New Zealand vs Sri Lanka, makes a mockery of what cricket has always stood for. The elite merit a status above that of the non-elite, unlike in most other sports.

Australia vs South Africa is not the same West Indies vs England either but both are classified the same.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

AWTA. I can see merit in Ireland playing ODI cricket but the team they fielded was shocking.

The point is, this process should not exist. ODI status should have a far stricter criteria. As it is, it's far too easy to get.

The difference between Aus-SA and Eng-WI is infinitely smaller than that between Eng-WI and Bermuda-Canada.

The process is pretty strict and is not at all that easy to get. And from when did purists care about ODI stats? Test have a really strict criteria while Odi's is a less stricter criteria.

Now the difference isn't that different between those in the top 8 but when they 1st got their status there was about the same amount of difference which effected the stats back then too. but as time went the difference slimed down like the difference between these top associates and the full members will eventually slim down.

I don't see why the only games termed "ODI" shouldn't be those between two ODI-standard teams, and never have.

AWTA. We don't consider Tests against Test 'minnows' as being worthy of the name, or of subsequent recognition as such. Why shouldn't we apply the same approach to ODI's? It's all in the name of consistency.

AWTA. We don't consider Tests against Test 'minnows' as being worthy of the name, or of subsequent recognition as such. Why shouldn't we apply the same approach to ODI's? It's all in the name of consistency.

i'm pretty sure you guys do that with bangladesh/zimbabwe etc. test is the last final thing and is given up all the requirements for being a full cricket supporting country is there. You can't have the same requirements for ODI's because Test and ODI's dont even compare and aren't even close in terms of respect for the forms.